Allowed

The Special Commissioner v. Tmt.Meenakshi

Madras HC19 Mar 2018CMP(MD)/10427/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench of Madras High Court considered a plea to condone an 878-day delay in filing a writ appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a lower court order conducting an assignment of land to a landless person, condoning the delay upon the appellants jointly bearing court expenses.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing writ appeal condoned on condition of payment of Rs.10,000 by appellants to the Coordinator of a Namakkal Manavalarci Kundriyom Maiyam Home on or before 23.03.2018.

The Special Commissioner Vs Tmt.Meenakshi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Honble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN and The Honble Mrs.Justice R.HEMALATHA

¶6

CMP(MD) No.10427 of 2017 IN WA(MD) No.SR38235 of 2017

¶7

1 THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER

¶8

AND THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-5.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶10

SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶11

3 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

¶12

SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶13

4 THE TAHSILDAR, DEVAKOTTAI. ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶14

¶15

TMT.MEENAKSHI ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶16

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 878 days in filing the above Writ Appeal as against the order in WP(MD)No. 2230 of 2009 dated 10/03/2015.

¶17

PRAYER IN WA(MD)No.SR38235/2017:

¶18

To set aside the order dated 10.03.2015 made in WP(MD) No.2230 of 2009 and allow the writ appeal and thus render justice.

¶19

Prayer in WP(MD).2230/2009 :

¶20

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to order dated 30/01/2009 in Na.Ka.E4/11416/2006 of the 2nd respondent and the order dt. 09/03/09 in Na.Ka.E4/11416/06 of the 3rd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and quash the same and restore the assignment in respect of the lands of an extent of 4.21 acres in survey no. J1/9/3 in Udayachi Group, Devakottai taluk in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

¶22

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.A.K.BASKARAPANDIAN, Special Government Pleader for the petitioners and of MR.MAHADEVAN for M/S.AL.GANDHIMATHI, learned counsel for Respondent, the court made the following order:-

¶23

Heard Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.Mahadevan for M/s.Al.Gandhimathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner and perused the affidavit filed in support of this petition.

¶24

The only issue arises for consideration in the main matter is as to whether the respondent/writ petitioner at the time of submitting application seeking assignment, was a landless and poor person or not and the learned Judge has also allowed the Writ Petition in favour of the petitioner and directed the official respondents to fix the land value as on the date of application submitted by the Writ Petitioner. Challenging the legality of the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

¶25

In Paragraph No.11 of the affidavit filed in support of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the reason cited is 'administrative delay' and however, this petition is strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent by drawing the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit of the respondent and would submit that the delay is huge and enormous and except citing the above administrative delay, no plausible explanation is submitted as to such delay.

¶26

This Court taking into consideration the rival submissions and overall facts and circumstances of the case, is of the considered view that the delay in filing the above Writ Appeal (MD)No.SR38235 of 2017, is to be condoned by putting the petitioners/appellants on terms.

¶27

In the result, the delay is condoned and the petition is ordered subject to the condition that the petitioners/appellants shall jointly pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only), to the Coordinator of 'ek;gpf;if kdtsh;r;rp Fd;wpNahh; ikak;', Muthupatti, Sivagangai Taluk, on or before 23.03.2018 and on receipt of the same, the Coordinator of the said Home, shall utilise the said sum for the improvement/basic amenities of the Home.

¶28

Post the matter for compliance on 26.03.2018 .

¶29

sd/19/03/2018

¶30

/ TRUE COPY /

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023.

1 THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-5.

¶36

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI. 3 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT, SIVAGANGAI.

¶37

4 THE TAHSILDAR, DEVAKOTTAI. COPY TO : THE CO-ORDINATOR, NAMBIKKAI MANAVALARCHI KUNDRIYOR MAIYAM, MUTHUPATTI, SIVAGANGAI TALUK.

¶38

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.10427 of 2017 IN WA(MD) No.SR38235 of 2017 Date :19/03/2018 PK/RR-CSL/SAR-4/22.03.2018 : 3P/6C

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Special Commissioner v. Tmt.Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Commissioner v. Tmt.Meenakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Special Officer Vs S. Muniraj

K.Kulanthaivel Vs the District Collector

G.Sathiyaseelan, Vs the District Collector

A.Sikkanthar, Vs the Commissioner

V.S.Ganesan, S/O.Sokkaiah Vs the State Rep. by

S.Balan @ Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector